On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 6:12 PM Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > I have received some concerned voices in regard to have a package called > "psycopg3". I guess many have been burned out by the Python 2 to 3 > transition, and now it's not a happy pair of number to see next to each > other. Sorry, Fibonacci... > > The rationale behind having the 2 in the package name was to allow the > coexistence between v1 and 2. But now that nobody uses v1 anymore, I think > the name can be considered free. I believe it even predates pypi and the > requirements.txt convention. Dark times... > > Anyone against using "psycopg" as package name, and starting from 3 as > version number?
This is a not entirely unsimilar case to what pgAdmin4 is going through right now (they started with pgadmin4 version 1.0, which then led to a lot of confusion for people). Thus, regardless of if you call it psycopg or psycopg3, please make sure you start with version 3 :) -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
